“one of the most vile and racist blogs I have ever seen”
"Magic Negro Watch - bogus self-loathing madness"
"Think he's suffering from Stockholm Syndrome"
“why do you hate your own race?”
"This site is totally bogus!Still looking for the KKK logo"
"The "guy" is obviously off his rocker"
"Frightening"
"I admire your courage and fortitude."
“your blog is fearless, diverse, thought provoking and funny”

Kevin Lewis has been promoted to be the White House director of African American media. He has been working for press secretary Robert Gibbs and was the spokesman to African American media for the Presidential Inaugural Committee.

What the fuck is a “black media chief?” Really? Seriously? Is it because black people are not sophisticated enough to watch Meet the Press or The McLaughlin Group?

The audio level is a little low, but the slight comes at the 0:25 mark:

Assuming of course that it is a slight. I don't watch the show either. That aside, this was a meeting with just black bloggers. Can you imagine what would have happened if Bush held a bloggers meeting with only whites?

Partial transcript via RCP:

"The media is changing so rapidly that websites, like you guys do every day, do two things. Number one, it allows us to reach audiences that may not be watching Meet The Press. I’m just saying, it might be a different demographic."

Seeking not “Truth” but “true lies.”To understand how the Modern Liberal thinks it is helpful to look at the language they use. The first place to look is at the origins of “Political Correctness.” Since Modern Liberalism is Orwellian – their belief is that paradise can be achieved if only everyone would forfeit their knowledge of right and wrong and exist as if there were no difference between truth and lies – it needed an Orwellian conceit, “Newspeak” – to prevent the speaking of the truth.

Here, then, lies the fundamental difference between the Left and the Right. The Right seeks to be correct. The Left seeks the opposite of truth so they need to add a modifier to the concept. They are seeking “modified” truth, not “correctness” but “political correctness” which is, by definition, incorrect.

This is not the only concept that the Modern Liberal seeks to modify. Notice that, while the Right seeks “justice” the Left seeks a modified version of justice – social justice, the modifying of justice causing—by definition – something other than justice itself.

What is “Social Justice?” It’s a conceit that allows the Modern Liberal to champion all that is evil, failed and wrong and the attack all that is good, right and successful and do it in the guise of “morality.”

It’s appalling that Palin and too many others fail to understand that fact – indeed so many facts of American history. They don’t offer the slightest hint that they can appreciate the history of the Obama family and that in Michelle’s case, her ancestors were slaves – Jim Robinson of South Carolina, her paternal great-great grandfather, being one. Even after they were freed they were consigned to peonage, second-class citizens, forbidden to vote in much of the South, dissuaded from doing so in some of the North, relegated to separate schools, restaurants, churches, hotels, waiting rooms of train stations, the back of the bus, the other side of the tracks, the mortuary, the cemetery and, if whites could manage it, heaven itself.

It was the government that oppressed blacks, enforcing the laws that imprisoned them and hanged them for crimes grave and trivial, whipped them if they bolted for freedom and, in the Civil War, massacred them if they were captured fighting for the North. And yet if African Americans hesitate in embracing the mythical wonderfulness of America, they are accused of racism – of having the gall to know more about their own experience and history than Palin and others think they should.

I’m shocked that I have not gotten more grief regarding my diss of Sarah Palin (some e-mails but no biggie) but this is another example of why this woman will not be president. Although she is correct about many of the things she says about Michelle she should keep her fucking mouth shut. All of this grandstanding she is doing just pisses people off. I’m going to say again if she chooses to speak with substance and focuses on things that matter to people then folks can take her seriously. But all she has done with the book release and the high paying speaking gigs is turn herself into the political version of Paris Hilton.

Don’t get me wrong folks I don’t like Michelle and not defending her anti-American crap during the campaign but you don’t get elected to the presidency by deliberately making yourself into this polarizing figure when it is so unnecessary. Obama sucks ass as president, don’t give people a reason to be angry and resentful because black folks still like Obama no matter how screwed up a president he is and if Palin keeps running her mother on this race shit it will only motivate the Negro voting public.
*****
Oh Jesus Christ this mutherfucker again!?!

An audio clip from about two months ago has been uncovered by The Blaze which clearly demonstrates that, even with all of his opining and public speaking skills, there is a reason that Howard Dean’s most notable quote will always remain a timelessly incoherent scream. Despite being a one-word definition of ignorance, Dean doesn’t mind discussing how to control the media in an effort to educate what he considers to be the ignorant masses – Americans.
What would he do about the media?

I would bring back the Fairness Doctrine so you couldnt have a spectacle of a Fox Flooze, which just makes stuff up and is a propaganda outlet. You would actually have to have some sanctioned human beings talking to the other side. And MSNBC would have to do the same. They would have to have some conservatives on there too. I think that’s much better for the country.

Howard Dean reminds me of a certain someone… when you think they are out of your life for good they find a way to re-insert themselves into the fray. It is amazing how you can have such an everlasting presence in someone’s life without even trying. Catch a clue...nobody gives a shit… you too Howard. Just sayin’

Portland — The openly gay Mayor of Portland, Oregon wrote a blog post a few days ago on racism which turned some heads. Below is an excerpt:

“I trust in Portlanders sense of fairness; that bad actions by one member of any group does not and should not be generalized or applied more widely to other members of that same group. Otherwise, as part of the biggest racial group in Portland, European-Americans, producing many crimes daily, would be in deep trouble.”

That’s Portland Mayor Sam Adams’ response to an act of arson at the Corvallis, Oregon, Salman Al-Farisi Islamic Center on Sunday. Authorities believe the fire was set in retaliation for a thwarted bombing attempt by Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, an alleged American terrorist who occasionally frequented the mosque.

FARMINGTON, N.M. — Three friends had just finished their shifts at a McDonald’s when prosecutors say they carried out a gruesome attack on a customer: They allegedly shaped a coat hanger into a swastika, placed it on a heated stove and branded the symbol on the arm of the mentally disabled Navajo man.

Authorities say they then shaved a swastika on the back of the 22-year-old victim’s head and used markers to scrawl messages and images on his body, including “KKK,” “White Power,” a pentagram and a graphic image of a penis.

The men have become the first in the nation to be charged under a new law that makes it easier for the federal government to prosecute people for hate crimes.

The case also marked the latest troubling race-related attack in this New Mexico community, prompting a renewed focus among local leaders on improving relations between Navajos and whites.

The defendants are accused of violating the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and could face 10 years in prison if convicted. The sentences could be extended to life if the government proves kidnapping occurred.

Federal prosecutors say they were able to bring the case because the 2009 law eliminated a requirement that a victim must be engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or attending school, for hate crime charges to be leveled.

The law also expanded civil rights protections to include violence that is based on gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The swastika branding has also put the spotlight back on Farmington, a predominantly white community of about 45,000 residents near the Navajo Nation.

Farmington leaders signed a historic agreement earlier this month with the Navajo Nation in which both sides pledged to work toward improving race relations.

As the Senate returns to Washington to debate such matters as the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy, major media coverage of the disclosure of thousands of sensitive U.S. Government cables by WikiLeaks has curiously and conveniently ignored the homosexual orientation and anti-American motivation of the alleged leaker, Pfc. Bradley Manning, now in prison.
The New York Times reported, “The possibility that a large number of diplomatic cables might become public has been discussed in government and media circles since May. That was when, in an online chat, an Army intelligence analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning, described having downloaded from a military computer system many classified documents, including ‘260,000 State Department cables from embassies and consulates all over the world.’ In an online discussion with Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker, Private Manning said he had delivered the cables and other documents to WikiLeaks.”
This is all true. But what the Times left out of its coverage was that Manning was an open homosexual who flaunted the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy without being punished for his behavior and conduct.
Similarly, The Washington Post ignored the controversial issue of Manning’s sexual orientation. It reported, “Although WikiLeaks has not disclosed the source of the materials, suspicion has centered on Pfc. Bradley Manning, 23, an Army intelligence analyst now in military custody. The military arrested Manning this year, charging him with the downloading and transfer of classified material.” This was it.
Some honest coverage came from International Business Times, which reported, “Manning is openly gay and has been active in gay rights movements.”
But how was this possible if the Pentagon had a policy against gay soldiers?

Monday, November 29, 2010

Good Morning folks I trust that the vast majority of you had a much better Thanksday than I. Relaxing but uneventful week.
Wow I’m thinking I can’t remember the last time I was so out of touch from what is going on around the country and the world, not sure if it is a good thing or not. Did not even know about the mess going on in Korea until this morning and this WikiLeaks mess too. I did hear about Obama getting his lip jacked by some Hispanic Caucus dude I was more than slightly amused by that.
I have shit loads of reading and catching up to do so bear with me people, if I post some links to crap you have already read or heard of excuse me. Right now my mind is a complete blank feeling kind of vacant. Hopefully something will motivate me real soon.

This may be the biggest actual scandal of the Wikileaks document dump. So far, the big headlines have gone to such surprising factoids as the State Department conducting intelligence at the UN, the Obama administration playing Monty Hall to get countries like Slovenia to take terrorists from Gitmo (and getting a big zonker for its efforts), and the stunning news that China may have refused to block shipments of missile technology to its client state Iran a few years ago. What’s next, a diplomatic cable underscoring just how wet water can be?
No, the most troubling part of the Wikileaks story is how American diplomatic and military security can be so easily compromised by … Lady Gaga?

No amount of viagra funded through Obamacare seems capable of helping the man.

Barack Obama increasingly appears to be an impotent President and no amount of viagra funded through Obamacare seems capable of helping the man.

First there was North Korea. They have, in essence, engaged in several acts of war against South Korea and have received no substantive response. The United States will engage in military exercises with South Korea, but that’s it.

In reality, though, let’s not kid ourselves. North Korea has no plans to go to war. North Korea just wants something. It wants concessions of some kind. Further, until the U.S. Government recognizes that North Korea exists solely because of Chinese subsidy (pretty much like us these days), we can do little to curb North Korea unless we take a more aggressive posture against China — something few Republicans and even fewer Democrats want to do.

China, however, is the enemy.

In the meantime, Obama does nothing.

Then there is the matter of Wikileaks. Why its founder, Julian Assange, continues to walk free, is mind boggling given the extent of the leaking he is doing. The founder of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, directly says Wikileaks and, consequently, Mr. Assange, is an enemy of the United States.

This is the kind of stuff that gives these racist dickheads who visit social ammunition. However these white racist dickheads have no clue that their utter stupidity is far more toxic than any ignorant Negro shit.
Hey you skinhead idiot retards grow up, being racist is a mental disorder, it could be the asbestos in your tin trailer homes that causes your stupidity. I’m just sayin’

NPR interviews Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) about the Congressional Black Caucus’s visit to Cuba. Brown’s comments have gotten little play and, in fact, what should have been the money quote is totally ignored by NPR.

At the 2 minute mark in the interview, the reporter Melissa Block asks, “Well, Congressman, you well know that supporters of current Cuba policy, supporters of the embargo, say if you lift sanctions you are going to just aid and justify a repressive regime, you are going to kill any hope of democracy – that regime will just use more resources to become more oppressive than it already is.”

Cleaver: “Well, the world operates at its best when there’s diversity. Every nation does not need to be like the United States. And, frankly, we already have ties to diplomatic nations. And, frankly, if there is repression in Cuba we didn’t see it.”

Tuesday's evening news broadcasts and Wednesday's morning shows allowed a scant four and a half minutes of coverage to the conviction of powerful Democrat Charlie Rangel over ethics charges. In comparison, these same programs devoted 121 minutes to exhaustively examining every aspect of the announcement that Prince William is getting married, a disparity of 30 to one.

NBC's Today featured the most reporting on the British engagement, 41 minutes of coverage on Wednesday. Yet, the morning show discussed Rangel's misdeeds for only one minute and 45 seconds. Good Morning America was even worse. Just 12 seconds on the New York politician's failure to pay taxes and report income, but 31 minutes for the fashion, style and location of a wedding that won't take place until 2011.

The Early Show did slightly better on the Congressman: 38 seconds for Rangel, but 35 minutes for Prince William. The breakdown of just the morning shows is 42 to 1. (108 minutes for the wedding and two and a half for Rangel.)

On Tuesday, NBC's Nightly News was the worst offender. Seven minutes of a 30 minute show highlighted the engagement and a mere 34 seconds for the House Democrat, convicted on 11 counts.

(Evening News: Three minutes and 15 seconds for the wedding, one minute and seven seconds for Rangel. World News, just 23 seconds for the Representative and three minutes on the royals.) In total, the evening shows featured 13 and a half minutes for the upcoming wedding and two for Rangel (a disparity of six to one).

Typical of the reports was this brief description by Juju Chang on Wednesday's GMA: "Another formerly powerful Democrat, Congressman Charlie Rangel, is facing a formal reprimand or censure after he was convicted, Tuesday, on 11 ethics charges. Expulsion from the House is considered highly unlikely."

None of the morning or evening news pointed out that Rangel's trial had been delayed until after the election in order to avoid embarrassment for the Democrats.

I know I’m talking to myself here… but I have never understood and continue to be perplexed as to why folks would give a fuck about British Monarchy and the marriage of prince whatever the fuck to random fuck buddy chick possible princess queen whatever.
Who gives a shit!? People are unemployed, folks are still living in tents and are dying of disease in Haiti, Rangel is busted for being the corrupt fuck he has always been, Obama is running the country into the ground, Britain is broke and cutting services left and right and somehow we are suppose to give a shit about some royal stupid fuck marriage especially when you consider today (Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete)
Jesus human beings are so screwed up.

Here's your disturbing story of the day. These two are unsure whether to abort their child, so they put it up for an online vote. Have they no decency? How about having the child and giving it up for adoption?

A Minneapolis couple is preparing for the arrival of their first child. That is, unless internet voters decide they should have an abortion instead.

Tampa Florida (WTSP) — Debt collectors can be relentless and downright rude on the phone, but now Melanie Beacham, a St. Petersburg woman is filing suit alleging the company that financed her car loan began harassing family members over the social networking website Facebook.

Melanie Beacham says she fell behind on her car payment after getting sick and taking a medical leave from work. She contacted MarkOne Financial to explain the situation but says the harassing phone calls, as many as 20 per day, kept coming. Then one day she got a call from her sister saying the company contacted her in Georgia.

“I was telling her, ‘No way, because you’re not even a reference,’” said Beacham, who later found out MarkOne contacted her sister and other relatives via Facebook.

North Carolina (AP)– The Rev. Cedric Miller said 20 couples among the 1,100 members of his Living Word Christian Fellowship Church have run into marital trouble over the last six months after a spouse connected with an ex-flame over Facebook.

Because of the problems, he is ordering about 50 married church officials to delete their accounts with the social networking site or resign from their leadership positions. He had previously asked married congregants to share their login information with their spouses and now plans to suggest that they give up Facebook altogether.

If it were not for the fact that most preachers, pastors, reverends, priests, rabbi ect were a bunch of phony, hypocritical, morally repugnant, money grubbing, scam artists completely devoid of morality, morals and human dignity I just might give this dude some credence for his concern.
It isn’t Facebook asshole… people are just fucked up and being fucked up is simply more technologically convenient.
If you are a liar, idiot, abusive, irresponsible, rude, inconsiderate morally corrupt piece of shit what the fuck does Facebook have to do with that?

Sarah Palin says she is seriously considering a run for the White House, and she believes she could beat President Obama in 2012, the former Alaska governor told ABC News' Barbara Walters.

"I'm looking at the lay of the land now, and ... trying to figure that out, if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing," Palin said in an interview scheduled to air in full Dec. 9 on ABC as part of Walters' "10 Most Fascinating People" of 2010.

Asked Walters: "If you ran for president, could you beat Barack Obama?"

"I believe so," Palin said.

Ok I first saw this and was going to bust out this pissed off typical Gaius on PMS rant, but I said screw it, what is the point. I’ll just say this if Sarah Palin thinks she can beat Obama she is seriously delusional. If anyone… any Republican thinks that if she is the GOP nominee that she would or could become president they are equally as delusional.

I apologize for the repetitiveness but I have said countless numbers of times, I liked her, thought that she would make a great vice presidential running mate the only problem is we had a ancient RINO old white dude McCain running against the charismatic Negro charlatan Obama.

But as for Palin unfortunately she has turned herself into a celebrity. People don’t want a celebrity for a president. She is a fake as a three dollar bill, she only talks in clichés, has very little substance or intellectual insight and most of all she does not inspire confidence in the average voter.

She is not the woman I knew years before McCain picked her; she had passion, substance, intellect and was inspired by her core values not by the adulation of fans.

As screwed up as Obama is, Palin is simply too polarizing a figure. If she would stop twittering and posting bullshit on Facebook and communicating via catch phrases people could take her seriously.

Bottom line is she could have far more impact raising money for candidates, and spreading the gospel of conservative values. But as a serious presidential candidate she lost that long ago. She is more Paris Hilton than Ronald Reagan. Lose the political handlers, stop the high paying speaking gigs and the canned clichés and reconnect with the American people. Then and only then can someone like myself and the independents she would need to win the presidency can take her seriously.

Don’t doubt me folks, I was the same person who predicted she would be the VP nominee a month before it happened. I knew who and what she was all about back then. You could say I was her biggest supporter. However if it is one thing I know is people and I can spot fakeness and insincerity a mile away. Palin has turned into an actress and performer. If she had the political intellect and insight of a Newt she would be far more palatable.
She no longer inspires confidence and the people who rail about her are no better than the adoring fans that screamed and fainted at Obama rallies.
America has serious issues; we need a strong leader who inspired confidence. Right now I can’t tell you who that is… but it damn sure is not Sarah Palin.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

One of the things about blogging for me is that I get to catalogue the writings
of other individuals who are willing to call a spade a spade.
I killed a blog that was chalked full of material and ammunition on just why Democrats tend to
be the most corrupt, corruptible and contemptible individuals on the planet.
However I learned that after this election that truth and honor are virtues that are now a distant memory. Millions of people decry the declining standards of decency in our society. Many of these same people attend church on a daily basis praying for divine intervention hoping that their Lord and Savior will give them the strength to do the right thing everyday.
Yet millions of people, many God fearing seemingly righteous individuals will support politically individuals who could be considered the demon spawns of Lucifer himself.

I have written similar rants and have had Democrat types lecture me on the declining standards of man and it has nothing to do with an individual’s political affiliation. I beg to differ.

A few months ago I wrote what could be described as my personal life story. In that tale I explained why I have such a disdain for Democrats and liberalism.
Right hand on the bible, I have never met a Democrat politician whom I believed was a righteous and virtuous individual. In fact I have a number of them on my office wall.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area where I remember watching San Francisco city officials
sink what should be a glorious city onto the abyss of liberal depravity.
What makes it worse that idiot liberals recently released a movie about one of the most moronic San Francisco city leaders in history and his only claim to fame is the fact that dude was gay, I’m speaking of Harvey Milk.

The Bay Area has a legacy of liberal leaders who have bankrupt municipalities and school
districts. None of that matters because liberalism is wrought with selfishness.
Cities can go broke, school districts can fail, people can be left jobless, homeless and uneducated and none of that would matter to a liberal voter as long as the political individual they support care about the right of gays, supported the legal distribution of drugs and drug paraphernalia and the rights of the homeless to squat anywhere they see fit.
Dirty nasty streets, crime and societal degradation are allowed to run rampant under the careful watch of liberalism.

It is often debated whether or not liberalism is some sort of personality or mental
disorder how else can you explain some of the nonsense that comes from the minds
of people who call themselves liberals or Democrats.

As a young child I listened to liberal types plot and scheme on just how their enhanced
sense of righteousness and justice will one day lead our society into the glow of liberalism. Liberalism is as much a religion as any form of Christianity or Islam and those who practice it see themselves as the product of some sort of divine genetic engineering.
And it is that sense of entitlement and self induced morality that leads them to proclaim ridiculous shit like global warming and animal right nonsense.
Let me be clear, killing a cat, a dog or any other animal indiscriminately is repugnant, however propping up animals to the level of human beings borders on insanity.
This brings me to this 2005 article by Evan Sayet, Why Democrats Lie. I believe that Democrats inherently lie about everything because they believe that they can see the greater good by being manipulative corrupt fucks. Basically they feel that their lies are necessary to promote the greater good as Mr. Sayet points out.

This article is 3 years old but it is timeless when it comes to Democrats.

************

(Source - By Evan Sayet)Why Democrats Lie Sandy Berger is caught cramming top secret war-time documents down the front of his pants. Dan Rather is caught using forged documents in an effort to try and steal an election. John Kerry slanders one million of his "band of brothers" in bogus testimony before Congress and continues to lie about having been in Cambodia on Christmas eve 1968 sent there by Richard Nixon (who wasn't President yet), hearing the Vietnamese "sing Christmas carols" (the Vietnamese are Buddhists and don't celebrate Christmas) and being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge who didn't become a military force until about half a decade later.

Howard Dean attempts to spread outrageous lies about the President of the United States and the events of 9/11 only admitting after being caught that he never believed the lies he was spreading and only found them to be "interesting." Al Sharpton, of course, made his name by helping to fake the rape of a young child while Ted Kennedy clung to his family name after leaving his "female companion" to die a miserable death while he swam to shore to sober up before calling the police. The leadership of the Democratic Party gave a standing ovation to a movie that they know is nothing more than a lie-filled, hate-filled, anti-American propaganda movie while Ward Churchill's lies not only saw him hired at the University of Colorado but then tenured and ultimately promoted to the head of the department.

These are not the "odd-zealot" but the heart and soul of the Democratic Party -- from its most recent standard bearer to the newly minted head of the DNC to its leading voice in "civil rights" to its top foreign policy advisors to its House and Senate leadership and beyond. Lying is not a small part of being a Democrat -- it IS the Democratic Party.

Those who seek reasonable position -- the Joe Liebermans and the Dick Gephardts for example -- find less support amongst the leftist powers-that-be than did Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat. Al Gore, always the conniving politician, recognize this and reinvented himself for the fourteenth time -- this time as a spitting demagogue spewing the anti-American hate and lies that is today's Democratic Party coin of the realm.

Of course the Democrats call the Republicans "liars" but all liars call the other side liars. It's hard to take seriously charges that Bush is a liar because he agreed with Clinton who wasn't a liar, Chirac who isn't a liar, and literally every other intelligence agency on the planet with regard to Saddam's WMDs.

It is equally difficult to take seriously charges that Republicans are "liars" in a book called "Lying Liars And The Lying Lies They Tell" when that book is written by a man whose greatest political contribution prior was a movie called "Stuart Smalley Saves The World" and the book itself is so filled with lies that the author has to swear in a court of law that he never meant for anyone to think he was telling the truth (thus it was deemed a "satire" and the author saved from the myriad of libel suits).

Remember, in every court case the cop says the rapist is lying and the rapist says the cop is lying. The Nazis said the Jews were lying about the gas chambers and the Jews said the Nazis were lying. Truth is NOT always somewhere in the middle.

So why do Democrats lie? Well, for one thing, they have to. Democrats recognize that the vast majority of the American people reject their basic philosophies of redistribution of wealth, more and more power in the hands of the federal government and more and more power over America by corrupt and anti-American international forces like the French and the United Nations.

Further they recognize that they have to lie because their policies invariably fail when put into practice. The Democrats have had forty years of uninterrupted social experimentation along their lines (as well as the examples of socialist Europe and communist Russia) and cannot point to a single legitimate accomplishment.

After decades of affirmative action, "new math" and their "multicultural" experiments blacks are still disproportionately members of an "underclass," our schools are so bad we have to outsource the simplest jobs just to find people in India who don't speak "ebonics" and America is more divided, not less divided, with the left's agenda of chucking the whole "melting pot" concept in favor of "multiculturalism" and America hatred.

The left also lies because, as I wrote in a previous post, there is nothing they believe in except themselves. These are, in the words of the former feminist leader Tammy Bruce, "malignant narcissists." Being narcissists truth is defined as anything that advances their own cause.

Because of their arrogance and self-importance anyone who disagrees with them must be either stupid or racist. Lying to the former, to get them to do the "right" thing, then, is doing them a favor and lying to the latter is believed a "moral imperative."

Further, because there is nothing the leftist believes in other than self there is nothing he puts ahead of his agenda. In the old days a Walter Cronkite might well have had the same ideological bent as a Dan Rather but Cronkite's respect for his profession kept him from being an out and out liar. In the old days Hollywood's love for movies might have seen the movie-maker give the best picture Oscar to what was really the best picture. Today the award is given without regard to the quality of the film but rather to any picture that advances their leftist agenda (this year it was the pro-euthanasia "Million Dollar Baby".) Once a museum curator placed beauty ahead of ideology and thus filled the halls with exceptional works based on their aesthetic value rather than crosses drenched in urine and elephant dung smeared across the Virgin Mary's private parts.

Democrats lie because, with nothing bigger than themselves to believe in -- not G-d, not country, not democracy, not art, not truth -- truth is defined by whatever it is they say it is. Therefore the leftist believes themselves incapable of lying no matter how many times a Sandy Berger is caught cramming top secret war time documents down the front of his pants, how many forged documents Dan Rather uses, no matter how many children Al Sharpton fakes the rape of, no matter how many hateful slanders come from Ward Churchill and so on. To the Democrat any lie that advances their cause is, by definition, the truth.

Marin County prosecutors hope they have persuaded state prison officials to abandon a plan that would have granted unsupervised release to a man convicted in the 2001 starvation death of his 19-month-old son and child abuse involving his 12 other children.

Winnfred Wright, the self-anointed leader of the Family, a cultlike Marin County group that included five women and 13 children, is scheduled to be released from prison next week. The state had planned to release Wright under a program started in January that allows nonviolent offenders to be paroled without supervision.

But while Marin County District Attorney Ed Berberian said he was told Tuesday that Wright will be monitored, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said late Tuesday that the inmate's status was still being assessed and that no decision had been made as to whether his parole will be supervised or unsupervised.

Why would idiot ass Negros elect a dude who owes $252k in back taxes? Just askin

Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums' wife, Cynthia, has been talking with city officials about the possibility that her husband will depart before his term ends Jan. 3, perhaps to take a lobbying job in Washington, D.C.

Adding fuel to the gossip fire: This week the mayor canceled his farewell State of the City address, which had been scheduled for today, and decided to post it on the city's website instead.

If Dellums were to step down, Mayor-elect Jean Quan would automatically replace him in her capacity as vice mayor on the City Council. Then she would be sworn in to her full four-year term as scheduled.

Dellums, who turns 75 next week, is under pressure to give the Internal Revenue Service a sizable check to clear up his $252,000 tax lien by the end of the year.

We're told Dellums has been exploring erasing the lien with an advance on speaking engagements as well as a possible signing bonus from a new lobbying job. He has also looked at how quickly he can access his city pension.

Dellums earns $183,000 a year as mayor. Under city law, he can't accept outside work and has restrictions on outside income as long as he remains in office. Hence the early resignation talk.

"Almost everything at this point seems to be related to how to get him back on financial track," said one source with inside knowledge, who asked for anonymity because he is not authorized to speak for Dellums.

On the other side of the ledger: Confidants inside and outside City Hall are telling Dellums and his wife that it will be yet "another bad story" for the outgoing mayor if he goes out prematurely.

Dellums' chief of staff, Marisol Lopez, told us Tuesday that "as far as I know right now, he is going to finish out his term."

Be sure and read Tim Carney’s Examiner column today on the politically-connected lobby for the controversial new TSA scanners that are upsetting airline employees and travelers everywhere. Carney notes that a company called Rapiscan got a $165 million contract for the new body image scanners four days after the underwear-bomber incident this past Christmas. Not surprisingly, Rapiscan is politically connected, observes Carney:

Rapiscan got the other naked-scanner contract from the TSA, worth $173 million. Rapiscan’s lobbyists include Susan Carr, a former senior legislative aide to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee. When Defense Daily reported on Price’s appropriations bill last winter, the publication noted “Price likes the budget for its emphasis on filling gaps in aviation security, in particular the whole body imaging systems.”
Then this morning Carney also noted that former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff was flacking for Rapiscan.

America is riddled with disease, and your child is probably infected. You may already know this. After all, much like leprosy and acne, obesity can be detected from a few yards away, and the opportunities to observe it are everywhere.
In the United States, potbellies and thunder thighs are the look that never goes out of fashion. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 17 percent of children and adolescents are now obese. As for adults, 30 percent were obese in 2000, as compared to 13 percent in 1960.
Despite its growing prevalence, obesity is a trend without a friend. People lose their patience with love handles the more of them they find.
If you forget about the glut of oversized guts, the government will remind you. September was America's first-ever Childhood Obesity Awareness Month -- the same month, as it happens, that kids go back to school and resume their bullying and teasing of each other. Increasingly, though, it is adults doing the finger-pointing.

'Given the profane, intrusive, indecent nature, they are patently unreasonable'

A lawsuit was filed today against Janet Napolitano and the Transportation Security Administration alleging that the invasive airport "security" procedures instituted at President Obama's instructions are "profane, degrading, intrusive and indecent" and are both "unreasonable and violative of the Fourth Amendment."

The case was filed in federal court for the District of Columbia by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute and others on behalf of two veteran pilots, Michael S. Roberts and Ann Poe.

The issue of the invasion of privacy demanded by the TSA at airport security checkpoints – passengers are given the option of an X-ray that reveals a virtually nude image for government agents to see or a hands-on-all-body-parts pat-down – has exploded in recent days.

I recently devoted my biweekly column in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles to analyzing why most Jews believe that people are basically good despite the fact that this belief is neither rational nor Jewish. In a lifetime of teaching and writing on Judaism, I have never encountered a single normative statement in 3,000 years of Jewish writing that asserted that man is basically good.

As I expected, the reaction -- apparently all from Jewish liberals -- was entirely negative. Almost an entire page of the journal was devoted to letters attacking me. One of the seven letters -- from a prominent Hollywood screenwriter -- bordered on hysteria.

The question is, why?

Why would liberals in general, and Jewish liberals in particular -- given the Jews' singularly horrific history at the hands of other human beings -- react so strongly against someone who wrote that people are not basically good?

In my original article, I offered one explanation: Since the Enlightenment, the secular world has had to believe in man (or "humanity") because if you don't believe in God and you don't believe in humanity, you will despair.

But one critic opened my eyes to an even deeper reason most liberals do not acknowledge that people are not basically good.

This is what he wrote:

"What a sad world it would be if we all believed as Dennis Prager that mankind is inherently evil."

And this is what I responded:

"I did not write that man is inherently evil. I wrote that he is not basically good. And, yes, that does make the world sad. So do disease, earthquakes, death and all the unjust suffering in the world. But sad facts remain facts."

"A distinguishing characteristic of liberals and leftists," I concluded, "is their aversion to acknowledging sad facts."

Monday, November 15, 2010

“I am in this race because I don’t want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I don’t want to pit Blue America against Red America; I want to lead a United States of America.” So declared Barack Obama in November 2007, making the case that Democrats should nominate him, rather than one of his rivals, because he could free the nation from the bitter partisanship of the past.

Some of us were skeptical. A couple of months after Mr. Obama gave that speech, I warned that his vision of a “different kind of politics” was a vain hope, that any Democrat who made it to the White House would face “an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can’t bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false.”

So, how’s it going?

Sure enough, President Obama is now facing the same kind of opposition that President Bill Clinton had to deal with: an enraged right that denies the legitimacy of his presidency, that eagerly seizes on every wild rumor manufactured by the right-wing media complex.

This opposition cannot be appeased. Some pundits claim that Mr. Obama has polarized the country by following too liberal an agenda. But the truth is that the attacks on the president have no relationship to anything he is actually doing or proposing.

Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course. The provision requiring that Medicare pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling was introduced by Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican — yes, Republican — of Georgia, who says that it’s “nuts” to claim that it has anything to do with euthanasia.

And not long ago, some of the most enthusiastic peddlers of the euthanasia smear, including Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, and Mrs. Palin herself, were all for “advance directives” for medical care in the event that you are incapacitated or comatose. That’s exactly what was being proposed — and has now, in the face of all the hysteria, been dropped from the bill.

Yet the smear continues to spread. And as the example of Mr. Gingrich shows, it’s not a fringe phenomenon: Senior G.O.P. figures, including so-called moderates, have endorsed the lie.

Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is one of these supposed moderates. I’m not sure where his centrist reputation comes from — he did, after all, compare critics of the Bush tax cuts to Hitler. But in any case, his role in the health care debate has been flat-out despicable.

Last week, Mr. Grassley claimed that his colleague Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor wouldn’t have been treated properly in other countries because they prefer to “spend money on people who can contribute more to the economy.” This week, he told an audience that “you have every right to fear,” that we “should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma.”

Again, that’s what a supposedly centrist Republican, a member of the Gang of Six trying to devise a bipartisan health plan, sounds like.

So much, then, for Mr. Obama’s dream of moving beyond divisive politics. The truth is that the factors that made politics so ugly in the Clinton years — the paranoia of a significant minority of Americans and the cynical willingness of leading Republicans to cater to that paranoia — are as strong as ever. In fact, the situation may be even worse than it was in the 1990s because the collapse of the Bush administration has left the G.O.P. with no real leaders other than Rush Limbaugh.

The question now is how Mr. Obama will deal with the death of his postpartisan dream.

So far, at least, the Obama administration’s response to the outpouring of hate on the right has had a deer-in-the-headlights quality. It’s as if officials still can’t wrap their minds around the fact that things like this can happen to people who aren’t named Clinton, as if they keep expecting the nonsense to just go away.

What, then, should Mr. Obama do? It would certainly help if he gave clearer and more concise explanations of his health care plan. To be fair, he’s gotten much better at that over the past couple of weeks.

What’s still missing, however, is a sense of passion and outrage — passion for the goal of ensuring that every American gets the health care he or she needs, outrage at the lies and fear-mongering that are being used to block that goal.

So can Mr. Obama, who can be so eloquent when delivering a message of uplift, rise to the challenge of unreasoning, unappeasable opposition? Only time will tell.

WASHINGTON — The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks.

Advanced even this week by Republican stalwarts including the party’s last vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, and Charles E. Grassley, the veteran Iowa senator, the nature of the assertion nonetheless seemed reminiscent of the modern-day viral Internet campaigns that dogged Mr. Obama last year, falsely calling him a Muslim and questioning his nationality.

But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists.

Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor).

There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels or any other governmental body that would cut off care for the critically ill as a cost-cutting measure. But over the course of the past few months, early, stated fears from anti-abortion conservatives that Mr. Obama would pursue a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia agenda, combined with twisted accounts of actual legislative proposals that would provide financing for optional consultations with doctors about hospice care and other “end of life” services, fed the rumor to the point where it overcame the debate.

President Obama must decide now how he wants to govern in the two years leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

In recent days, he has offered differing visions of how he might approach the country's problems. At one point, he spoke of the need for "mid-course corrections." At another, he expressed a desire to take ideas from both sides of the aisle. And before this month's midterm elections, he said he believed that the next two years would involve "hand-to-hand combat" with Republicans, whom he also referred to as "enemies."

It is clear that the president is still trying to reach a resolution in his own mind as to what he should do and how he should do it.

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

My Two Cents...

Obviously with the name of my blog and all that I have said about this president it is clear that I have great disdain for the man. I’ve said more times that I can count I’ve never liked or trusted him and nothing he has done as president has shocked or surprised me. However he could go a long way in harvesting some respect if dude decides not to run for reelection in 2012. Because as the last line in this teaser says: “The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.”

By deciding not to run would not necessarily be seen as a failure in the eyes of many but it is clear if by some miracle or a massive dose of American stupidity that this man is somehow given another four years this country is fucked. Bowing out gracefully would be seen as noble and unselfish.

Now I’m no fool, Obama is an arrogant fuck and he does not give a shit about this country, so any talk of him fading in the sunset in 2012 is just a pipe dream, unless the Democrats force him to step aside and in doing so would or could permanently alienate the Negro vote for years to come. Just sayin.’

First, let’s hear from the usual suspects. The Wall Street Journal looks at Barack Obama’s performance at the G-20 summit as well as his trip to Seoul and pronounces it the worst ever for an American President. The editors are disgusted by the performance, but in the end say failure was the right outcome:

Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week’s G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can’t think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.
The root of this embarrassment is political and intellectual: Rather than leading the world from a position of strength, Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness. America’s problem, in their view, is the export and exchange rate policies of the Germans, Chinese or Brazilians. And the U.S. solution is to have the Fed print enough money to devalue the dollar so America can grow by stealing demand from the rest of the world. …

NEW CASTLE — When Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff, two 13-year-olds from Chappaqua's Seven Bridges Middle School, set up shop at Gedney Park on a fall weekend last month, they were expecting a tidy profit.

New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn came upon the sale and called the cops on the kids for operating without a license.

The boys' parents are incensed and can't believe a Town Board member would handle the situation that way.

"I am shocked and sad for the boys. It was such a great idea, and they worked hard at it," said Laura Graff, Kevin's mother. "But then some Town Board member decided to get on his high horse and wreck their dreams."

Although he was likely taking a swipe at former governor Sarah Palin with the reference, Paul Krugman on Sunday recommended "death panels" as a means of helping to balance the federal budget.

In a Roundtable discussion on ABC's "This Week," the New York Times columnist said of what recently came out of the President's deficit commission, "Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes"

Union bosses fought tooth and nail to nationalize America’s health care—even, in many cases, to the detriment of their own members. Now, instead of chewing on and swallowing what they bit off, unions are getting waivers to the very plan that they shoved down everyone else’s throat.

The NYT reported last week on all the waivers that the Department of Health and Human Services has given out. Apparently they have come to realize how bad this bill is that they're supposed to be imposing on companies so they're allowing those companies to get waivers to delay companies doing what many predicted would happen once the bill was enacted - they'd just drop their own coverage and throw employees onto the public programs.

As Obama administration officials put into place some of the new rules that go into effect under the federal health care law, they are issuing more waivers to try to prevent some insurers and employers from dropping coverage and also promising to modify other rules because many of the existing policies would not meet new standards.

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide.

The most ethical, transparent House ever is operating in its usual cloaked manner. WaPo reports: “The logistics of the cases are somewhat unclear because the ethics committee tends to operate in deep levels of secrecy. The prosecution will be represented by staff lawyers for the committee who handled the two-year investigation of Rangel; the congressman is expected to deliver an opening statement that would likely mirror much of his August floor speech. It is unclear whether witnesses will be on hand or if committee lawyers will just read transcripts, and, if witnesses are present, whether Rangel will cross-examine them under oath.”

"Frankly I believe they're abusing the First Amendment, they're the crowd who calls fire in a crowded theatre."

The fact that Texas continues to re-elect this woman into office speaks volumes as to the intellect of the citizens in her district. Remember .. this barking moonbat thought we had place astronauts on Mars. This is only the beginning. The left is going to step up their attacks on talk radio. They blame us for a lot of their losses. To fools like Sheila Jackson Lee the First Amendment means nothing. All they can see right now is their quest to silence those who criticize them and their leftist agenda. Gawd that makes them angry that they can't use their precious imperial federal government to silence anyone who challenges their liberal mindset.

*******
On Being A Conservative
We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

Rush Limbaugh
The term 'Magic Negro' was used by Los Angelas Times columnist David Ehrenstein in an article he wrote on March 19th, 2007. Mr. Ehrenstein, an African-American, used the term to describe the then Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. It was picked up by Rush Limbaugh and parodied in a song by Paul Shanklin a frequent guest of Mr. Limbaugh's.